Metals and Societies Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway

Tobias L. Kienlin – Ben Roberts

Contents

Ben Roberts – Tobias L. KienlinForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Caroline JacksonOf Barbara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Christian StrahmDie Begegnung mit Barbara Ottaway: Erinnerungen an die Impulse für die frühen akademischen Studien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Publications of Barbara S. Ottaway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

I. Metals and Societies

Christopher P. Thornton Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a Paradigm Shift? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Martin BartelheimElites and Metals in the Central European Early Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Rüdiger KrauseBronze Age Copper Production in the Alps: Organisation and Social Hierarchies in Mining Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Tobias L. Kienlin – Thomas StöllnerSingen Copper, Alpine Settlement and Early Bronze Age Mining: Is There a Need for Elites and Strongholds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Emma C. WagerMining Ore and Making People: Re-thinking Notions of Gender and Age in Bronze Age Mining Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Christian Strahm – Andreas HauptmannThe Metallurgical Developmental Phases in the Old World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Ben RobertsOrigins, Transmission and Traditions: Analysing Early Metal in Western Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Benoît Mille – Laurent CarozzaMoving into the Metal Ages: The Social Importance of Metal at the End of the Neolithic Period in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Contents

Dirk BrandhermThe Social Context of Early Bronze Age Metalworking in Iberia: Evidence from the Burial Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

John BintliffIs the Essence of Innovative Archaeology a Technology for the Unconscious? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

II. Aspects of Copper and Bronze Age Metallurgy

Dušan BorićAbsolute dating of metallurgical innovations in the Vinča Culture of the Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Nikolaus BoroffkaSimple Technology: Casting Moulds for Axe-adzes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Tobias L. Kienlin – Ernst PernickaAspects of the Production of Copper Age Jászladány Type Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Mark PearceHow Much Metal was there in Circulation in Copper Age Italy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Paul Ambert – Valentina Figueroa-Larre – Jean-Louis Guendon – Veronika Klemm – Marie Laroche – Salvador Rovira – Christian StrahmThe Copper Mines of Cabrières (Hérault) in Southern France and the Chalcolithic Metallurgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Roland Müller – Ernst PernickaChemical Analyses in Archaeometallurgy: A View on the Iberian Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Susan La Niece – Caroline CartwrightBronze Age Gold Lock-rings with Cores of Wax and Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Trevor Cowie – Brendan O’ConnorSome Early Bronze Age Stone Moulds from Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Viktoria KissThe Life Cycle of Middle Bronze Age Bronze Artefacts from the Western Part of the Carpathian Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Elka Duberow – Ernst Pernicka – Alexandra Krenn-LeebEastern Alps or Western Carpathians: Early Bronze Age Metal within the Wieselburg Culture . . . . . 281

Marianne Mödlinger – Gerhard TrnkaHerstellungstechnische Untersuchungen an Riegseeschwertern aus Ostösterreich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Barbara HorejsMetalworkers at the Çukuriçi Höyük? An Early Bronze Age Mould and a “Near Eastern Weight” from Western Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

Contents

Vincent C. Pigott“Luristan Bronzes” and the Development of Metallurgy in the West-Central Zagros, Iran . . . . . . . . . 369

Quanyu Wang – Jianjun MeiSome Observations on Recent Studies of Bronze Casting Technology in Ancient China . . . . . . . . . . . 383

III. Approaches to Early Metallurgy

Walter Fasnacht7000 Years of Trial and Error in Copper Metallurgy – in One Experimental Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

Caroline JacksonExperimental Archaeology and Education: Theory without Practice is Empty; Practice without Theory is Blind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

Salvador Rovira – Ignacio Montero-Ruiz – Martina RenziExperimental Co-smelting to Copper-tin Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

Julia HeebThinking Through Technology – An Experimental Approach to the Copper Axes from Southeastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

Colin Merrony – Bryan Hanks – Roger DoonanSeeking the Process: The Application of Geophysical Survey on some Early Mining and Metalworking Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

IV. Studies in Historical Metallurgy

Alessandra Giumlia-Mair – Péter Gaboda – Hedvig Györy – Irén VozilTwo Statuettes with ḥmty km Inlays in the Fine Arts Museum Budapest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

Nerantzis NerantzisUsing Mills to Refine Metals: Iron Smelting Technology of the Transitional Byzantine to Ottoman Period in Macedonia, Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

Paul T. CraddockPerceptions and Reality: The Fall and Rise of the Indian Mining and Metal Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

25

IntroductionThe title of this essay is taken directly from a sym-posium paper by Martha Goodway (1991), the former head metallurgist at the Smithsonian Institution, in which she applauds what she perceives to be a para-digmatic shift in the study of ancient metallurgy that has refocused attention “from metals to materials, from art history and the history of technology to ar-chaeology and material culture” (p. 709). Goodway noted that a key aspect of this new paradigm was the desire to understand both the technical and the hu-man aspects of ancient metallurgy in the framework of a particular socio-cultural context. It is this new paradigm, she argued, that truly deserves the title of “archaeometallurgy” (p. 710).

Goodway’s paper was a landmark, in that it brought attention to the fact that by the early 1990s, both the practice and the theory of archaeometal-lurgy was changing (see also Cleere 1993; Ehrenreich 1991; 1996). However, I question the accuracy of her much-cited title on three grounds:1. that what she was referring to was in fact the crea-tion of an ‘archaeometallurgical paradigm’ during the 1970s–80s and not a shift per se,2. that the true paradigmatic shift in archaeometal-lurgy began after her paper was published in the early 1990s,

3. and that this new paradigm is actually different from Goodway’s conception in that archaeometal-lurgy should not be about understanding ‘both sides’ of ancient metallurgical practice, but about under-standing the dialectic between metallurgy as material science and metallurgy as human behavior.

It is this study of the discursive relationship between metal artifacts, metallurgical technologies, and the ancient people that performed and utilized them that I believe is the first major archaeometallurgical para-digm and the future of our discipline.

In this essay, written in honor of Barbara Ottaway, a remarkable scholar who was one of the first to suc-cessfully investigate archaeological questions with rigorous scientific methods and nuanced theoretical understanding, I will attempt to explain what I mean by an ‘archaeometallurgical paradigm.’ Furthermore, I will try to elucidate what is nowadays meant by the term “archaeometallurgy” among a specific quorum of scholars working in America and in Europe. I will then provide a cursory historical review of some of the influential figures, seminal works, and theoreti-cal movements of the 20th century that contributed to this new paradigm. Finally, I will suggest some future directions from the perspective of one who is part of “die heranwachsende Generation” and who, thus, does not know any better.

Defining ‘paradigm’It was, of course, Thomas Kuhn (1962) who first took the word ‘paradigm’ from linguistics and applied it to science, defining it as a shared set of beliefs held by a group of scientists that determines how they attempt to solve problems or interpret results. Kuhn differ-entiated a ‘paradigm’ (or shared ‘worldview’) from a

Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a Paradigm Shift?

Christopher P. Thornton

* “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (Kuhn’s translation).

Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als be-lehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut geworden ist.

Max Planck (cited in Kuhn 1962)*

AbstractArchaeometallurgy has long been a rather loosely-defined field of study with few central tenets of a theoretical or scientific nature. Over the past few decades, calls for an integrated approach to ancient metallurgical practices have arisen, and certain ‘schools’ of archaeometallurgical thought have coalesced in different parts of the world. Us-ing Kuhn’s conception of “paradigms”, this paper seeks to highlight some of these ‘schools’ as a step towards formulat-ing a new archaeometallurgical paradigm – one that com-bines scientific practice with theoretical understanding.

26 Christopher P. Thornton

‘paradigm shift’ (or ‘scientific revolution’), which is when the new paradigm finally replaces the old para-digm. He noted the presence of a transitional period, in which two or more ‘incommensurable’ paradigms compete for ‘converts’ – a period of negotiation that ultimately must fail, giving way to one dominant par-adigm.

While a useful heuristic device for understanding intellectual trends in academia, Kuhn’s conception of ‘paradigms’ and ‘paradigm shifts’ is unnecessarily essentialist and deeply rooted in a Hegelian-Marxian framework involving chronological periods of theo-retical stability truncated by “revolutions” of new and radical thought. In archaeometallurgy (if not in all academic disciplines), these ‘shifts’ cannot be his-toricized absolutely – i.e., just as the introduction of copper did not cause the cessation of lithic produc-tion, the introduction of a new theoretical paradigm did not and does not necessitate the extinction of its predecessors. In fact, even contrary modes of thought can operate in tandem – see, for example, the pro-longed existence of ‘culture historical’ approaches to archaeology (e.g., ceramic typologies, migration mod-els) despite two highly-touted paradigmatic shifts to ‘processualism’ in the 1960s and to ‘post-processual-ism’ in the 1980s.

Thus, a ‘paradigm shift’ is defined here as the adop-tion of a new school of thought by a certain quorum of scholars that affects the structuring and interpreta-tion of hypothesis testing and that is built upon pre-ceding paradigms without superceding them (contra Kuhn). Such a shift in ‘worldview’ can be noticeable in both Planck’s “rising generation” but also among those more senior scholars who were part of so-called ‘competing’ paradigms. Just as archaeometallurgy is moving away from ‘replacement’ models in discussing the development of early metallurgy, so too should we avoid confrontational conceptions of ‘paradigms’ as put forth by Planck, Kuhn, et al. However, it is a re-ality of any academic field that methods and theories ebb-and-flow over time, sometimes returning to past conclusions and sometimes striking out into new ter-ritory (Trigger 1989: 370–411). The ‘archaeometallur-gical paradigm’ discussed in this paper began in the 1970s and 1980s with scholars from both sides of the Atlantic, experienced a transition period in the 1990s, and appears to have been firmly adopted by the early years of the 21st century.

Defining ‘archaeometallurgy’Archaeometallurgy is often defined simply as the study of ancient metallurgical technology, focusing exclusively on the manufacturing process from ore selection and mining to the production of metal ob-jects. This sort of definition not only emphasizes the technical aspects over the human production and use

of metal artifacts, but actively exacerbates the widen-ing division between archaeological science (‘archae-ometry’) and archaeological theory realized since the 1980s (see Olin 1982; Renfrew 1991; Thomas 1991; Dunnell 1993; Pollard 1995; Killick/Young 1997; Pol-lard/Bray 2007). As Ehrenreich (1991: 55) has noted:

The objectives of archaeometallurgy should be to augment our understanding of the rise of craft spe-cialization, the organization and importance of pre-historic industries, the effects of new technologies on societies, the extent and limits of cultural contacts, and the impetus and alterations required to change rudiments of societal infrastructure.

It is this idea of augmenting the archaeological record that is often lost on many archaeometallurgists, who predominantly come to ancient metallurgy from the perspective of the natural or material sciences.

This is not to say that the scientific aspects of archaeo-metallurgy are unimportant! On the contrary, it is the ability to empirically document the production, use, and meaning of metals in society that differentiates an archaeometallurgist from an art historian, ar-chaeologist, or a scientist-technician (see Rehren/Pernicka 2008). Without the scientific methodology, archaeometallurgy would be almost entirely unable to tap into the past human behavior captured so el-egantly in the microstructures and chemical compo-sitions of metal artifacts (Smith 1978; Franklin 1983). Thus, in this section I will attempt to summarize the major steps in the metallurgical process (à la Ottaway 2001) in order to show how they have been (and could still be) informed by broader archaeological and an-thropological understandings vis-à-vis the new ar-chaeometallurgical paradigm.

The earliest stage in the metallurgical process is naturally the selection and extraction of metallic ores. Numerous scholars have attempted to understand prehistoric mining techniques and ore-selecting deci-sions through ethnographic, experimental, and ana-lytical means (see Weisgerber/Pernicka 1995; Knapp/Pigott 1997; Weisgerber/Willies 2001). More rare are studies that emphasize the socio-economic (e.g., Bakewell 1984; Godoy 1985) or socio-cultural (e.g., Herbert 1993 and various papers in Knapp et al. 1998) aspects of historic or prehistoric mining, including the organization of labor, symbolic and/or ritualized behavior, and demarcated gender roles. As in other facets of archaeometallurgy, this overemphasis on the technical aspects has led to explanations lacking anthropological nuance, such as Charles’s (1980: 160) somewhat accepted (but theoretically moribund) ar-gument that copper ore usage began in the Neolithic period of the Old World because the recession of the last major glaciers left a zone of copper-rich geologi-cal formations exposed (see Killick 2001: 487–488). Al-though environmental determinism is not unique to

27Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a Paradigm Shift?

archaeometallurgy, the study of ancient mining and ore exploitation could certainly benefit from more contemporary anthropological theories on the inter-action between societies and their environments such as ‘landscape’ studies (e.g., Thomas 2001) and studies of spatial organization (e.g., Rapoport 1994) as well as more theoretical discussions on the adoption of new materials (e.g., van der Leeuw/Torrence 1989). Some relatively recent literature on lithic and stone mining may serve as an appropriate model for how this may be accomplished (e.g., Bradley/Edmonds 1993; Top-ping/Lynott 2005).1

After the ores are mined, they are usually pro-cessed (e.g., worked to remove aggregates or roasted to turn sulfide ores into oxide ores for ease in smelt-ing) and brought to the smelting site, which may be situated either near to the ore source or nearer to a water, clay, or charcoal source that is some distance from the mine (Childs 1991: 342–343; Doonan 1994; Ottaway/Roberts 2008). Alternatively, the location of a smelting site may be chosen relative to the loca-tion of the actual settlement (as opposed to a mate-rial resource) or because of some belief held by the community about a particular place. Although it may be difficult to delineate such reasoning in the past, it is important for the archaeometallurgist to keep in mind that smelting sites are not arbitrarily chosen but signify a conscious decision on the part of those involved (Childs/Killick 1993). The actual process of extracting metal from ores can be achieved in multi-ple ways that need not be discussed here (see Tylecote 1962; 1980; Ottaway 1994; Craddock 1995 for excellent summaries). However, it is important to note that the transformation of one material into another (as-suming, of course, that ancient societies categorized these materials separately as we do) was undoubtedly as much a symbolic act as a technical act (Budd/Tay-lor 1995). Thus, the ways in which we interpret the remains of extractive metallurgical processes, includ-ing furnace or crucible fragments, slag, and charcoal, must seek answers beyond the purely technological into the realms of social and cultural behavior (e.g., van der Merwe/Avery 1988; Childs 1991; Epstein 1993; Bourgarit 2007).

With the raw metallic material in hand, the an-cient metalworker had a plethora of techniques to use in the creation of an object. First, the metal-worker could melt different metals together (e.g., tin and copper) in order to create a particular alloy (e.g., tin bronze) with more desirable visual (e.g., color) or mechanical (e.g., hardness) characteristics. This alloying step can also be achieved during the smelt itself by mixing ores containing different metallic ele-ments (e.g., malachite for copper and cassiterite for tin). Once the metal with desired characteristics was achieved or received, the metalworker would then

1 I thank Ben Roberts for pointing me towards these references.

begin to manufacture the object through a combina-tion of various casting and shaping techniques. It is this manufacturing process that is perhaps the most important part of the entire chaîne opératoire for the archaeometallurgist, because the sequence of steps is ‘readable’ in the structure of the metallic grains of the artifact as seen through a metallographic microscope (Smith 1978; Pigott 1996: 139). Perhaps no other ma-terial provides such unhindered access to an ancient technological process (with the possible exception of lithics that can be reconstructed back to the original core), thus allowing archaeometallurgists a unique view of ancient human behavior.

After an object is produced, it begins the major portion of its ‘biography’ (à la Kopytoff 1986) that is, unfortunately, often the most difficult to reconstruct. This chapter in the artifact’s ‘life history’ is some-times called the “use life” and deals with the physical and symbolic transformations the object undergoes during multiple stages of use, re-use, recycling, and eventually deposition (see Gosden/Marshall 1999). In other words, the archaeometallurgist must attempt to understand the artifact as a dynamic entity that is continuously engaged in a social discourse with the people who created, transformed, used, traded, and discarded it, and whose meaning and function were (and still are) constantly being re-negotiated by performative acts of use and disuse (see Sørensen 1997; Sofaer Derevenski/Sørensen 2002). To accom-plish this somewhat quixotic quest, the archaeologi-cal context of the object is of primary importance, because by placing the artifact in space and time and, thereby, drawing comparanda with similar objects, we come to understand its role in trade and exchange systems, in levels of craft specialization, and in medi-ating and maintaining socio-political hierarchies and socio-cultural identities.

The in’s and out’s of archaeometallurgy: Three ‘waves’Although I state above that the first ‘archaeometal-lurgical paradigm’ as I define it began in the 1970s, this was not the first time that ancient metallurgy was subjected to academic scrutiny. Indeed, the earli-est examples of ancient metallurgical research date to the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, when the first attested experiments were performed on metal artifacts to determine their authenticity and antiquity (see Craddock 1995; Goodway 1991). By the late 19th century, scientists such as John Percy had begun to report on their analyses of metal artifacts within archaeological publications, while early 20th century scientists such as William Gowland began to combine ethnographic accounts with archaeological and analytical data. Although these studies serve as

28 Christopher P. Thornton

the ancestors of all later archaeometallurgical work, they cannot be defined as an ‘archaeometallurgical paradigm’ per se because they could not provide in-terpretations of archaeological import without the help of archaeologists.

What I would call the ‘second wave’ of archaeo-metallurgy is derived not from scientists, but from the theories of Engels (1969 [1884]) and Marx (1971 [1857]), who conceptualized metals (following C. J. Thomsen and L. H. Morgan) as important indicators of certain social evolutionary stages and, therefore, integral components of the ancient socio-economic system. The intellectual heir of Marx and Engels in the field of archaeology was unquestionably V. Gor-don Childe (e.g., 1930; 1944; 1957), whose theories on social evolution and class construction through tech-nological advancement (particularly metals) and craft specialization continue to influence modern archaeo-logical interpretation (see Rowlands 1971; Trigger 1986; and various papers in Wailes 1996). Remarkably, Childe was able to create these synthetic models and theories about ancient metallurgy without utilizing hardly any scientific analysis, thus prohibiting this ‘second wave’ from being defined as a true archaeo-metallurgical paradigm.

It is important to note that this proscription from the dubious honor of ‘archaeometallurgical para-digm’ is not intended to diminish the importance of Marxian and Childean thought in archaeology and, by extension, to archaeometallurgy. Indeed, some of the most influential writers on metallurgical theory in the past few decades have followed these theorists and have similarly not bothered to integrate techni-cal analysis with anthropological understanding. For example, the famous Wertime – Renfrew debate on the origins of metallurgy (e.g., Renfrew 1969; Wertime 1973), which has become the archetypical discussion on ‘diffusion’ vs. ‘independent invention,’ was carried out with little mention of possible analyses to prove or refute their hypotheses (see Muhly 1988: 15). Even the great Russian scholar Evgenii Chernykh (1992; Chernykh et al. 2000), whose “metallurgical prov-ince” model is perhaps the most influential theory on ancient metallurgical production since Childe, only loosely refers to the technical analysis of over 60.000 metal artifacts that he oversaw from sites across the former Soviet Union. While these scholars unques-tionably operate within a Marxian-Childean archaeo-logical paradigm, their theories cannot be described as truly ‘archaeometallurgical’ because they lack the crucial integration of the human/societal and the technical aspects of ancient metallurgy.

This conceptual divide was first crossed in the 1970s by a group of scholars (here called the ‘third wave’) who are as notable for their excellent archaeo-metallurgical research as for their enduring legacy as teachers and mentors. In Germany, Gerd Weisger-ber and Hans-Gert Bachmann championed scientific

methods of analysis in collaboration with archaeo-logical investigations of ancient mines and metallur-gical sites. In Africa, early work by Nikolaas J. van der Merwe, Donald Avery, and Peter Schmidt integrated ethnographic research with archaeological and ar-chaeometric analysis to discuss more cultural and ideological aspects of early metallurgy. In England, Ronald Tylecote of the UCL Institute of Archaeology and Beno Rothenberg of the Institute of Archaeo-metallurgical Studies (IAMS) and the Timna Project in Israel were the first to successfully combine archaeo-logical fieldwork, scientific analysis, and experimen-tal reconstruction in order to understand firsthand the interaction between ancient societies and their metallurgical technology (Killick 2001; Cleere 1993). In America, this first ‘archaeometallurgical paradigm’ manifested in the material sciences with scholars at M.I.T. such as Cyril Stanley Smith, Martha Goodway, and Heather Lechtman, and at the University of Penn-sylvania with scholars such as Robert Maddin, Tamara Stech, and James Muhly, all of whom were instrumen-tal in introducing metallography to studies of ancient metallurgical technology (Goodway 1991: 706).

It is worth dwelling for a moment on the Ameri-can side of this ‘third wave’ of ancient metallurgical studies, because I would argue that it is out of Smith’s teachings that a new ‘archaeometallurgical paradigm’ has coalesced. Although never trained in anthropol-ogy or the humanities, Smith argued in a series of papers (e.g., 1970; 1971; 1977; 1978) that, “technol-ogy is more closely related to art than to science” due to its ability to manipulate matter in order to create something more culturally complex than is scientifi-cally analyzable (Smith 1981: 325). By this he meant that the adoption or application of a technology de-rives not from some technical or economic necessity, but from aesthetics and other socio-cultural desires. Neolithic peoples did not need copper tools – indeed, they continued to make lithic and bone tools for the next 5.000 years – but they wanted copper tools, and Smith argued that we need to understand that desire in order to understand early metallurgy as a human endeavour.

To know why ancient peoples wanted metals, Smith felt that we had to know how they made met-als, more specifically how they cast and worked na-tive copper or copper ingots into finished artifacts. He argued that the desire of the craftsperson should be apparent in the finished product at all levels of inference – chemical, physical, and visual – and that by studying the artifact scientifically at all three lev-els, we should be able to deduce a pattern (what he called a “structural hierarchy”). As a simple example, if an ancient metalworker wanted to create a strong knife blade, then the modern-day scientist should be able to prove this by determining the choices of the craftsperson: Did he or she choose the stronger metal over the weaker metal? Did he or she hammer and

29Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a Paradigm Shift?

anneal the blade to maximum hardness or leave it as-cast? Did he or she make the object long and pointy, or short and round? If any of these levels of inference do not suggest the desire for a strong blade (e.g., they left it as-cast instead of hammering it) then we must seek a different explanation for its construction (e.g., it was made to be put in a tomb and not to be used as a weapon).

These ideas were greatly expounded upon by his protégé, Heather Lechtman (1977), whose conception of “technological style” has, over time, had a truly ‘revolutionary’ effect on technological studies in an-thropology and archaeology (see Dobres/Hoffman 1994: 217–221). Lechtman was to Smith what Huxley was to Darwin – his staunchest supporter, and the one who took his teachings and ideas and made them something really paradigmatic. In her own series of papers, Lechtman (e.g., 1979; 1984; 1993; 1996; 1999) argues that the manner in which an object is made unconsciously reflects (and actively recreates) the ideological ‘worldview’ of the craftsperson and his or her society through the medium of non-verbal com-munication known as ‘style.’ To reach this conclusion, Lechtman took Smith’s concept of the ‘structural hier archy’ of materials and argued that the pattern of inter-related processes seen at the chemical, physi-cal, and visual levels of an object are due to “cultural patterning” in the craftspeople who made it.2 That is, Lechtman takes a Maussian/Bourdieuan approach to human behavior, in which agents operate uncon-sciously in a particular way due to a shared cultural mindset – a process that Mauss (1935) called enchaîne-ment organique and which Bourdieu (1977) called ha-bitus. Thus, by studying metalworking practices in particular regions or sites, the archaeometallurgist is often able to deduce a local technological tradi-tion that ‘defines’ the metallurgy of that region (e.g., Ravich/Ryndina 1995; Thornton/Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004). These stylistic traditions, which are often ex-pressed in other crafts as well (see Keightley 1987; Lechtman 1996; Shimada 1996; Sofaer 2006), help us to determine the choices being made and allow us to actually catch a glimpse of the desires, taboos, and rules that structured ancient societies.

Archaeometallurgy in the 21st centuryIn the beginning of this paper, I responded to Good-way’s proclamation of a ‘paradigm shift’ in archae-ometallurgy by suggesting that she was actually documenting the creation of the first archaeometal-

2 This conception is very similar to, although developed apparently without any knowledge of, Leroi-Gourhan’s (1945; 1964) idea of degré du fait and those of his successors in the French social technology school such as Lemonnier’s (1976; 1986; 1992) theory of “technical systems”.

lurgical paradigm – i.e., the first set of beliefs shared by a group of scholars who were interested in under-standing ancient societies vis-à-vis ancient metal-lurgy through both scientific and anthropological/archaeological methods of inquiry. However, her be-lief in a ‘shift’ was not altogether unfounded, simply premature. As early as the 1980s, the Smith-Lechtman school of technology and behavior was rapidly gain-ing ‘converts’, but mainly among scholars interested in ancient ceramics (e.g., Wright 1985; various papers in Kingery 1986; Gosselain 1992; Hegmon 1992). While some American archaeometallurgists accepted these teachings early on (e.g., Pigott 1982; Heskel 1982), it was not until the 1990s that a significant quorum of archaeometallurgical works began to appear in sup-port of this paradigm (e.g., Childs 1991; Epstein 1993; Hosler 1994; Reedy 1997; Friedman 1998) in conjunc-tion with larger discussions about the social organi-zation of craft production (e.g., Brumfiel/Earle 1987; Costin 1991; 2001; Pfaffenberger 1992). More recent-ly, this new paradigm has become almost de rigueur among American archaeometallurgists (see Killick 2004), particularly among the younger generation (e.g., Ehrhardt 2005; Tedesco 2005; Peterson 2007; Ehlers forthcoming), which is the best (and perhaps only) indication that a true paradigmatic shift has oc-curred.

While the Smith-Lechtman school of ‘technologi-cal style’ has not had the same effect on European archaeometallurgy as it has in America, I would ar-gue that there has still been a theoretical shift, al-though of a different nature. In Britain, for example, the ‘innovation-adoption’ school, which came out of Renfrew’s work on southeastern European met-allurgy (1969; 1973) and the Varna cemetery (1978; 1984; 1986), has had a dramatic effect on the ways in which archaeologists study metallurgy and metal ar-tifacts (e.g., Sørensen 1989; 1996; Kienlin 1999; Sofaer Derevenski 2000; Kim 2001; Ottaway 2001; Sofaer/Sø-rensen forthcoming).3 A theoretical shift can also be seen to some extent in continental Europe, where the social organization of technology (if not the cultural aspects of its production and use) have become domi-nant themes (e.g., Vandkilde 1996; various papers in Pare 2000; Ottaway/Wager 2002). More recently, the trendy though ill-defined ‘materiality’ school in Brit-ain has been dominating theoretical discussions of ancient technologies (e.g., DeMarrais et al. 1996; Ren-frew 2001; DeMarrais et al. 2004; Miller 2005; but see

3 It was pointed out to me by Prof. Thilo Rehren of the UCL Institute of Archaeology that the major achievement in British archaeometallurgy over the past few decades has been the incorporation of ancient metallurgical studies into mainstream archaeological departments and teaching curri-cula – a ‘paradigmatic shift’ still sadly absent from American academia. The role of “innovation-adoption” theories in the acceptance of archaeometallurgy by mainstream archaeolo-gists has never been fully explored, but would certainly be an interesting topic for discussion.

30 Christopher P. Thornton

also Ingold 2007 and responses), although we await proof that this theory has any relevance to scientific studies of ancient materials (see Jones 2004 and re-sponses in Archaeometry 2005, volume 47.1).

While the apparent shift in British and European discussions of metallurgy and other technologies is indeed significant, theoretical trends like ‘materiali-ty’ are mostly archaeological paradigms with little in-terest in scientific data. Such approaches threaten to widen the gap between archaeometrists or archaeo-logical scientists and more theoretically-inclined ar-chaeologists. As discussed above, it is the use of em-pirical data in conjunction with archaeological and anthropological interpretation that can provide the most holistic view of ancient technologies in their so-cial and cultural contexts. This either occurs through close collaboration between scientists and archaeolo-gists, or by adoption of the archaeometallurgical par-adigm discussed above. Without both aspects inform-ing the other in a dialectical relationship (i.e., theory structuring practice just as practice changes theory), we are only understanding half of the story. Barbara Ottaway (1994; 2001; 2002; 2003) has long been a great champion of this critical relationship between metal-lurgy as a scientific practice and metallurgy as a hu-man endeavor, and it is hoped that future generations will follow her lead and join the revolution.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Ben Roberts and Tobias Kien-lin for inviting me to submit a paper for this volume, meant to celebrate one of the grande dames of archaeo-metallurgy. Insightful comments on and criticisms of early drafts of this paper were provided by Ben Rob-erts, Thilo Rehren, Vincent Pigott, and David Killick. I thank them greatly for their help while accepting full responsibility for the views expressed in this paper.

ReferencesBakewell 1984 P. J. Bakewell, Miners of the Red Mountain: Indian Labor in

Potosi, 1545–1650. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press 1984.

Bourdieu 1977 P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press 1977.Bourgarit 2007 D. Bourgarit, Chalcolithic Copper Smelting. In: S. La

Niece/D. Hook/P. T. Craddock (eds.), Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy. London: Archetype Publi-cations 2007, 3–14.

Bradley/Edmonds 1993 R. Bradley/M. Edmonds. Interpreting the Axe Trade: Pro-

duction and Exchange in Neolithic Britain. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993.

Brumfield/Earle 1987 E. Brumfiel/T. K. Earle, Specialization, Exchange, and Com-

plex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987.

Budd/Taylor 1995 P. Budd/T. Taylor, The Faerie Smith Meets the Bronze

Industry: Magic versus Science in the Interpretation of Prehistoric Metalworking. World Archaeology 27, 1995, 133–143.

Charles 1980 J. A. Charles, The Coming of Copper and Copper-based Al-

loys and Iron: A Metallurgical Sequence. In: T. A. Wertime/J. D. Muhly (eds.), The Coming of the Age of Iron. New Haven: Yale University Press 1980, 151–182.

Chernykh 1992 E. N. Chernykh, Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press 1992.Chernykh et al. 2000 E. N. Chernykh/L. I. Avilova/L. B. Orlovskaja, Metallurgi-

cal Provinces and Radiocarbon Chronology. Moscow: Ros-sijskaja Akademija Nauk, Institut Arkheologii 2000.

Childe 1930 V. G. Childe, The Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press 1930.Childe 1944 V. G. Childe, Archaeological Ages as Technological Stages.

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 74, 1944, 7–24.

Childe 1957 V. G. Childe, The Bronze Age. Past and Present 12, 1957,

2–15.Childs 1991 S. T. Childs, Style, Technology and Iron-smelting Furnaces

in Bantu-speaking Africa. Journal of Anthropological Ar-chaeology 10, 1991, 332–359.

Childs/Killick 1993 S. T. Childs/D. Killick, Indigenous African Metallurgy: Na-

ture and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 22, 1993, 317–337.

Cleere 1993 H. Cleere, Archaeometallurgy Comes of Age. Antiquity 67,

1993, 175–178.Costin 1991 C. L. Costin, Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Docu-

menting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In: M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 3. Tucson: University of Arizona Press 1991, 1–56.

Costin 2001 C. L. Costin, Craft Production Systems. In: G. M. Feinman/T.

D. Price (eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A Source-book. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 2001, 273–328.

Craddock 1995 P. T. Craddock, Early Metal Mining and Production. Edin-

burgh: Edinburgh University Press 1995.DeMarrais et al. 1996 E. DeMarrais/L. J. Castillo/T. Earle, Ideology, Materializa-

tion, and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology 37, 1996, 15–31.

DeMarrais et al. 2004 E. DeMarrais/C. Gosden/C. Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking

Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2004.

Dobres/Hoffman 1994 M.-A. Dobres/C. R. Hoffman, Social Agency and the Dy-

namics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeologi-cal Method and Theory 13, 1994, 211–258.

Doonan 1994 R. Doonan, Sweat, Fire and Brimstone: Pre-treatment of

Copper Ore and the Effects on Smelting Techniques. Jour-nal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 28, 1994, 211–258.

31Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a Paradigm Shift?

Dunnell 1993 R. C. Dunnell, Why Archaeologists Don’t Care About Ar-

chaeometry. Archaeomaterials 7, 1993, 161–165.Ehlers forthcoming C. Ehlers, Style in Technology: An Examination of Bronze-

work in Urartu. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Archae-ology, Boston University forthcoming.

Ehrenreich 1991 R. M. Ehrenreich, Archaeometallurgy and Archaeology:

Widening the Scope. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 81, 1991, 55–62.

Ehrenreich 1996 R. M. Ehrenreich, Archaeometallurgy and the Analysis of

Early Sociotechnical Systems. Journal of the Oriental Mu-seum 48, 1996, 62–63.

Ehrhardt 2005 K. L. Ehrhardt, European Metals in Native Hands: Rethink-

ing the Dynamics of Technological Change, 1640–1683. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press 2005.

Engels 1969 F. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and

the State, in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Mor-gan. New York: International Publishers 1969 [1884].

Epstein 1993 S. M. Epstein, Cultural Choice and Technological Conse-

quences: Constraint of Innovation in the Late Prehistoric Copper Smelting Industry of Cerro Huaringa, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania 1993.

Franklin 1983 U. M. Franklin, The Beginnings of Metallurgy in China: A

Comparative Approach. In: G. Kuwayama (ed.), The Great Bronze Age of China: A Symposium. Los Angeles: Los Ange-les County Museum of Art 1983, 94–99.

Friedman 1998 E. S. Friedman, Technological Style in Early Bronze Age

Anatolia. Ph.D. dissertation. Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago 1998.

Godoy 1985 R. Godoy, Mining: Anthropological Perspectives. Annual

Review of Anthropology 14, 1985, 199–217.Goodway 1991 M. Goodway, Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a Paradigm

Shift? In: P. B. Vandiver/J. Druzik/G. S. Wheeler (eds.), Ma-terial Issues in Art and Archaeology II. Pittsburgh: Materi-als Research Society 1991, 705–712.

Gosden/Marshall 1999 C. Gosden/Y. Marshall, The Cultural Biography of Objects.

World Archaeology 312, 1999, 169–178.Gosselain 1992 O. P. Gosselain, Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery

among Bafia of Cameroon. Man 273, 1992, 559–586.Hegmon 1992 M. Hegmon, Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Re-

view of Anthropology 21, 1992, 517–536.Herbert 1993 E. W. Herbert, Iron, Gender, and Power: Rituals of Trans-

formation in African Societies. Bloomington: Indiana Uni-versity Press 1993.

Heskel 1982 D. L. Heskel, The Development of Pyrotechnology in Iran

during the Fourth and Third millennia B.C. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University 1982.

Hosler 1994 D. Hosler, The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sacred

Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. Cam-bridge: MIT Press 1994.

Ingold 2007 T. Ingold, Materials Against Materiality. Archaeological

Dialogues 14, 2007, 1–16.Jones 2004 A. Jones, Archaeometry and Materiality: Material-based

Analysis in Theory and Practice. Archaeometry 463, 2004, 327–338.

Keightley 1987 D. N. Keightley, Archaeology and Mentality: The Making of

China. Representations 18, 1987, 91–128.Kienlin 1999 T. L. Kienlin, From Stone to Bronze: Socio-cultural Inter-

pretation of Early Metallurgy in the Anglo-American The-ory. Tübinger Texte 2. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf 1999.

Killick 2001 D. Killick, Science, Speculation and the Origins of Extrac-

tive Metallurgy. In: D. R. Brothwell/A. M. Pollard (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester, UK: John Wiley/Sons 2001, 483–492.

Killick 2004 D. Killick, Social Constructionist Approaches to the Study

of Technology. World Archaeology 36, 2004, 571–578.Killick/Young 1997 D. Killick/S. M. M. Young, Archaeology and Archaeometry:

From Casual Dating to a Meaningful Relationship? Anti-quity 71, 1997, 518–524.

Kim 2001 J. Kim, Elite Strategies and the Spread of Technological In-

novation: The Spread of Iron in the Bronze Age Societies of Denmark and Southern Korea. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 2001, 442–478.

Kingery 1986 W. D. Kingery (ed.), Ceramics and Civilization: Technology

and Style. Columbus, OH: American Ceramic Society 1986.Knapp et al. 1997 A. B. Knapp/V. C. Pigott, The Archaeology and Anthropol-

ogy of Mining: Social Approaches to an Industrial Past. Current Anthropology 382, 1997, 300–304.

Knapp et al. 1998 A. B. Knapp/V. C. Pigott/E. W. Herbert (eds.), Social Ap-

proaches to an Industrial Past: The Archaeology and An-thropology of Mining. New York: Routledge 1998.

Kopytoff 1986 I. Kopytoff, The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditi-

zation as Process. In: A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986, 64–94.

Kuhn 1962 T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press 1962.Lechtman 1977 H. Lechtman, Style in Technology: Some Early Thoughts.

In: H. Lechtman/R. S. Merrill (eds.), Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. St. Paul: West Publishing 1977, 3–20.

Lechtman 1979 H. Lechtman, Issues in Andean Metallurgy. In: E. P. Benson

(ed.), Pre-Columbian Metallurgy of South America. Wash-ington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks 1979, 1–40.

Lechtman 1984 H. Lechtman, Andean Value Systems and the Development

of Prehistoric Metallurgy. Technology and Culture 251, 1984, 1–36.

Lechtman 1993 H. Lechtman, Technologies of Power: The Andean Case. In:

J. Henderson/P. Netherly (eds.), Configurations of Power in Complex Societies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 1993, 244–280.

Lechtman 1996 H. Lechtman, Cloth and Metal: The Culture of Technol-

ogy. In: E. H. Boone (ed.), Andean Art at Dumbarton Oaks. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 1996, 33–43.

Lechtman 1999 H. Lechtman, Afterword. In: M.-A. Dobres/C. R. Hoffman

(eds.), The Social Dynamics of Technology. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press 1999, 223–232.

32 Christopher P. Thornton

Lemonnier 1976 P. Lemonnier, La Description des Chaines Operatoires:

Contribution a l’Analyse des Systemes Techniques. Tech-niques et Culture 1, 1976, 100–151.

Lemmonier 1986 P. Lemonnier, The Study of Material Culture Today: To-

wards an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 1986, 147–186.

Lemonnier 1992 P. Lemonnier, Elements for an Anthropology of Technol-

ogy. Anthrological Papers No. 88. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 1992.

Leroi-Gourhan 1945 A. Leroi-Gourhan, Evolution et Techniques, vol. 2: Milieu

et techniques. Paris: Albin Michel 1945.Leroi-Gourhan 1964 A. Leroi-Gourhan, La Geste et la Parole I: Technique et Lan-

gage. Paris: Albin Michel 1964.Marx 1971 K. Marx, The Grundrisse. New York: Harper/Row 1971

[1857].Mauss 1935 M. Mauss, Les Techniques du Corps. In: B. Brewster (ed.),

Sociology and Psychology: Essays of Marcel Mauss. Lon-don: Routledge/Kegan Paul 1935 [1979], 97–123.

Miller 2005 D. Miller, Materiality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press

2005.Muhly 1988 J. D. Muhly, The Beginnings of Metallurgy in the Old World.

In: R. Maddin (ed.), The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1988, 2–20.

Olin 1982 J. S. Olin, Future Directions in Archaeometry: A Round Ta-

ble. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution 1982.Ottaway 1994 B. S. Ottaway, Prähistorische Archaometallurgie. Espe-

lkamp: Marie Leidorf 1994.Ottaway 2001 B. S. Ottaway, Innovation, Production, and Specialization

in Early Prehistoric Copper Metallurgy. European Journal of Archaeology 4, 2001, 87–112.

Ottaway 2002 B. S. Ottaway, Towards Interpretative Archaeometallurgy.

In: M. Bartelheim/E. Pernicka/R. Krause (eds.), Die Anfän-ge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt. Rahden/Westf: Marie Leidorf 2002, 7–13.

Ottaway 2003 B. S. Ottaway, Experimental Archaeometallurgy. In: Th.

Stöllner/G. Korlin/G. Steffens/J. Cierny (eds.), Man and Mining: Studies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on the Oc-casion of his 65th Birthday. Der Anschnitt Beiheft 16. Bo-chum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 2003, 341–348.

Ottaway/Roberts 2008 B. S. Ottaway/B. W. Roberts, The Emergence of Metalwork-

ing. In: A. Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Prac-tice. London: Blackwell 2008.

Ottaway/Wager 2002 B. S. Ottaway/E. C. Wager (eds.), Metals and Society. BAR

International Series 1061. Oxford: Hadrian Books 2002.Pare et al. 2000 C. F. E. Pare, Metals Make the World Go Round: The Supply

and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books 2000.

Peterson 2007 D. L. Peterson, Changing Technologies and Transforma-

tions of Value in the Middle Volga and Northeastern Cau-casus, circa 3000–1500 BCE. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago 2007.

Pfaffenberger 1992 B. Pfaffenberger, Social anthropology of technology. An-

nual Review of Anthropology 21, 1992, 491–516.

Pigott 1982 V. C. Pigott, The Innovation of Iron: Cultural Dynamics in

Technological Change. Expedition 251, 1982, 20–25.Pigott 1996 V. C. Pigott, Near Eastern Archaeometallurgy: Modern

Research and Future Directions. In: J. S. Cooper/G. M. Schwartz (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 1996, 139–176.

Pollard 1995 A. M. Pollard, Why Teach Heisenberg to Archaeologists?

Antiquity 69, 1995, 242–247.Pollard/Bray 2007 A. M. Pollard/P. Bray, A Bicycle Made for Two? The In-

tegration of Scientific Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation. Annual Review of Anthropology 36, 2007, 245–259.

Rapoport 1994 A. Rapoport, Spatial Organization and the Built Environ-

ment. In: T. Ingold (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of An-thropology. London: Routledge 1994, 460–502.

Ravich/Ryndina 1995 I. G. Ravich/N. V. Ryndina, Early Copper-arsenic Alloys and

the Problems of their Use in the Bronze Age of the North Caucasus. Bulletin of the Metals Museum 23, 1995, 1–18.

Reedy 1997 C. L. Reedy, Himalayan Bronzes: Technology, Style, and

Choices. Newark/London: University of Delaware Press/Associated University Presses 1997.

Rehren/Pernicka 2008 Th. Rehren/E. Pernicka, Coins, Artefacts and Isotopes – Ar-

chaeometallurgy and Archaeometry. Archaeometry 502, 2008, 232–248.

Renfrew 1969 C. Renfrew, The Autonomy of the South-east European

Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35, 1969, 12–47.

Renfrew 1973 C. Renfrew, Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolu-

tion and Prehistoric Europe. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1973.

Renfrew 1978 C. Renfrew, The Anatomy of Innovation. In: D. Green/C.

Haselgrove/M. Spriggs (eds.), Social Organisation and Set-tlement: Contributions from Anthropology, Archaeology, and Geography. BAR International Series Supplementary 47. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1978, 89–117.

Renfrew 1984 C. Renfrew, Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press 1984.Renfrew 1986 C. Renfrew, Varna and the Emergence of Wealth in Pre-

historic Europe. In: A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986, 141–168.

Renfrew 1991 C. Renfrew, The Identity and Future of Archaeological Sci-

ence. Proceedings of the British Academy 77, 1991, 285–293.

Renfrew 2001 C. Renfrew, Symbol Before Concept: Material Engagement

and the Early Development of Society. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press 2001, 122–140.

Rowlands 1971 M. J. Rowlands, The Archaeological Interpretation of Pre-

historic Metalworking. World Archaeology 3, 1971, 210–224.

Shimada 1996 I. Shimada, Sican Metallurgy and its Cross-craft Relation-

ship. Boletin Museo del Oro 41, 1996, 27–62.Smith 1970 C. S. Smith, Art, Technology, and Science: Notes on their

33Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a Paradigm Shift?

Historical Interaction. Technology and Culture 11, 1970, 493–549.

Smith 1971 C. S. Smith, A Post-symposium Note: Science in the Service

of History. In: R. H. Brill (ed.), Science and Archaeology. Cambridge: MIT Press 1971, 53–54.

Smith 1977 C. S. Smith, Metallurgy as a Human Experience: An Essay

on Man’s Relationship to his Materials in Science and Prac-tice throughout History. Metals Park, OH: American Soci-ety for Metals 1977, 122–140.

Smith 1978 C. S. Smith, Structural Hierarchy in Science, Art, and His-

tory. In: J. Wechsler (ed.), On Aesthetics in Science. Cam-bridge: MIT Press 1978, 9–54.

Smith 1981 C. S. Smith, On Art, Invention, and Technology. In: C. S.

Smith (ed.), A Search for Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press 1981, 325–331.

Sofaer 2006 J. Sofaer, Pots, Houses, and Metals: Technological Relations

at the Bronze Age Tell at Szazhalombatta, Hungary. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25, 2006, 127–147.

Sofaer/Sørensen forthcoming J. Sofaer,/M. L. S. Sørensen, Technological Change as

Social Change: The Introduction of Metal in Europe. In: M. Bartelheim/V. Heyd (eds.), Continuity-Discontinuity: Transition Periods in European Prehistory. Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft 2. Rahden Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf forthcoming.

Sofaer Derevenski 2000 J. Sofaer Derevenski, Rings of Life: The Role of Early Met-

alwork in Mediating the Gendered Life Course. World Ar-chaeology 31, 2000, 389–406.

Sofaer Derevenski/Sørensen 2002 J. Sofaer Derevenski/M. L. S. Sørensen, Becoming Cultural:

Society and the Incorporation of Bronze. In: B. S. Ottaway (ed.), Metals and Society. BAR International Series 1061. Oxford: Archaeopress 2002, 117–122.

Sørensen 1989 M. L. S. Sørensen, Ignoring Innovation – Denying

Change: The Role of Iron and the Impact of External Influences on the Transformation of Scandinavian So-cieties 800–500 BC. In: S. E. van der Leeuw/R. Torrence (eds.), What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of In-novation. One World Archaeology 14. London: Unwin Hyman 1989, 182–202.

Sørensen 1996 M. L. S. Sørensen, Woman as/and Metalworkers. In: A.

Devonshire/B. Wood (eds.), Women in Industry and Tech-nology: From Prehistory to the Present Day. London: Mu-seum of London 1996, 45–50.

Sørensen 1997 M. L. S. Sørensen, Reading Dress: The Construction of So-

cial Categories and Identities in Bronze Age Europe. Jour-nal of European Archaeology 51, 1997, 93–114.

Tedesco 2005 L. A. Tedesco, Redefining Technology in Bronze Age Tran-

scaucasia: Copper-alloy Metallurgy in Armenia in the 3rd to 2nd millennium BC. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dept. of Anthro-pology, New York University 2005.

Thomas 1991 J. Thomas, Science versus Anti-science. Archaeological Re-

view from Cambridge 101, 1991, 27–36.Thomas 2001 J. Thomas, Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In: I.

Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press 2001, 165–186.

Thornton/Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004 C. P. Thornton/C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, A New Look at

the Prehistoric Metallurgy of Southeastern Iran. Iran 42, 2004, 61–76.

Toping/Lynott 2005 P. Topping/M. Lynott, The Cultural Landscape of Prehis-

toric Mines. Oxford: Oxbow Books 2005.Trigger 1986 B. G. Trigger, The Role of Technology in V. Gordon Childe’s

Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 19, 1986, 1–14.

Tylecote 1962 R. F. Tylecote, Metallurgy in Archaeology. London: Edward

Arnold 1962.Tylecote 1980 R. F. Tylecote, Furnaces, Crucibles, and Slags. In: T. A.

Wertime/J. D. Muhly (eds.), The Coming of the Age of Iron. New Haven: Yale University Press 1980, 183–228.

van der Leeuw/Torrence 1989 S. E. van der Leeuw/R. Torrence (eds.), What’s New? A

Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. One World Ar-chaeology 14. London: Unwin Hyman 1989.

van der Merwe/Avery 1988 N. J. van der Merwe/D. H. Avery, Science and Magic in Af-

rican Technology: Traditional Iron Smelting in Malawi. In: R. Maddin (ed.), The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1988, 245–260.

Vandkilde 1996 H. Vandkilde, From Stone to Bronze: The Metalwork of the

Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Jut-land Archaeological Society Publications XXXII. Moesgård, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press 1996.

Wailes 1996 B. Wailes (ed.), Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In

Memory of V. Gordon Childe. University Museum Mono-graph 93. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeo-logy and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania 1996.

Weisgerber/Pernicka 1995 G. Weisgerber/E. Pernicka, Ore Mining in Prehistoric Eu-

rope: An Overview. In: G. Morteani/J. P. Northover (eds.), Prehistoric Gold in Europe. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995, 159–182.

Weisgerber/Willies 2001 G. Weisgerber/L. Willies, The Use of Fire in Prehistoric and

Ancient Mining: Firesetting. Paleorient 262, 2001, 131–149.Wertime 1973 T. A. Wertime, How Metallurgy Began: A Study in Diffusion

and Multiple Innovation. In: Actes du VIIIe Congres Inter-national des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques. Beograd 1973, 481–492.

Wright 1985 R. P. Wright, Technology and Style in Ancient Ceramics.

In: W. D. Kingery (ed.), Ceramics and Civilization: Ancient Technology to Modern Science. Vol. 1. Columbus, OH: The American Ceramic Society 1985, 5–25.